Falkland Islands government: “We wish to remain British”
“We wish to remain British and the sovereignty issue is not for negotiation” was the Falkland Islands government statement in response to last Saturday’s meeting in Chile of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
“Whilst Britain and the Falkland Islands have moved on to a new relationship based on democracy and self-determination, our Argentine neighbors remain in a time warp, still pressing their anachronistic claim to territorial sovereignty. In short, they wish to colonize the Falkland Islands”, points out the statement.
The two leaders met in Viña del Mar in the framework of the Progressive Governance conference and according to reports from both sides, 15 of the 35 minutes, on Argentine request, were absorbed by the Falkland Islands dispute.
Mrs. Kirchner demanded that the United Kingdom complies with United Nations resolutions calling for talks to find a solution to the sovereignty conflict, while PM Brown stated what he had advanced before reaching Chile, “there is nothing to discuss on the Falklands from our side” and emphasized the importance of self determination.
“Both sides agreed that they have differences of opinion”, said a Foreign Office official following the Saturday meeting.
Further on the statement underlines “we have been encouraged by the UK Government's clear and unshakeable position that the sovereignty issue is not for negotiation. There is no turning back from this.
”Falkland Islanders have expressed their views freely and unequivocally over many years. We wish to remain British. Our constitution enshrines the right to determine our own future. Surely no-one who supports democracy and human rights can oppose this?
”It is regrettable that 27 years after the Falklands War it is still necessary to spell this out once again to yet another Argentine leader who hasn't realized that the world has changed and countries cannot ride rough-shod over the right to self-determination of free people.
Suggested Stories
-
May 24th 2012
Falklands’ service to honour British Forces who lost their lives when landing for the recovery of the Islands
-
May 23rd 2012
Falklands’ economy “booming” in spite of Argentina’s efforts of a blockade
-
May 23rd 2012
Following the Falklands’ ad incident Britain/Argentina at the opening hockey match in London
-
May 23rd 2012
Ambassador Castro embroiled in controversy over Falklands and “possible constitutional reform”
63 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Remaining in a time warp seems to be a hispanic trait... when it suits them! We've had the problem for over 300 years now!
It's about time both Argentina and Spain matured, came into the 21st century and started to respect and accept the democratically expressed wishes of both the Falklands and Gibraltar in our respective expressions of self-determination!
My best wishes to our Falkland brothers in arms!
Saludos!
Cybernest
Blogging at A Gibo's Tale (agibostale.blogspot.com)
La tierra es de la personas que la habitan. Como argentinos no tenemos ningún derecho a reclamar la total y completa soberanía de las islas, simplemente porque nunca fueron nuestras en su totalidad.
Que sigamos discuentiendo este tema a 27 años del conflicto es tán ridículo como que ahora vengan los españoles a reclamar las tierras argentinas como suyas.
No seamos tarados, miremos hacia delante y apuntemos a mejorar las relaciones entre los argentinos y los isleños.
Luchemos simplemente porque una bandera argentina ondee sobre el cementerio de Darwin, ese sería el mayor honor para las personas que murieron peleando por su patria.
The dead remain at Darwin because the Argentine Government refused their repatriation in order to make crass political points for base political reasons in support of their illegal territorial expansion claims.
You are very privileged that the Falkland Islanders permit them to remain there out of respect in spite of the insults continually heaped on them by the Kirchners and their kind. Yourself included.
The Falklands deserves the worlds support in its quest for self-determination.
en.mercopress.com/2008/05/14/new-british-research-dismisses-argentina-s-falklands-claim
Remember who it was who got Spain to recognise Argentinian independence - oh yes. That would be those awful Brits that you go on about. The Falkands are British - as is South Georgia. Your leaders have lied to you and your history books are 'written' to support the lie.
www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
”Following the Argentine claims, the UK repeatedly (in 1947, 1951, 1953 and 1954) offered to take the matter to the International Court of Justice in the Hague but this was turned down by Argentina. When Britain took the issue to the court unilaterally in 1955, Argentina declined to cooperate, citing a lack of jurisdiction.”
Soy argentino y visite las islas varias veces. Todo parece funcionar muy bien, la gente es cordial, la naturaleza se cuida, Stanley se ve muy cuidado... imaginar a las islas argentinas mete miedo.... piensen en el politico-de-turno-amigo-K... afanando y lleno de corrupcion, . Las Islas son de los Isleños que las habitan ...
I also note the pretence at intellectual superiority, well all I can say is you've shown little knowledge of International Law. Article 73 of the UN Charter grants the islanders the rights to self-determination and before you preach about “territorial integrity”, Article 103 is quite specific that Article 73 cannot be subplanted by other UN declarations.
The Malvinas Anthem says:
“Tras su manto de neblinas
no las hemos de olvidar
”Las Malvinas Argentinas“
clama el viento y ruge el mar.
Ni de aquellos horizontes
nuestra enseña han de arrancar,
pues su blanco está en los montes
y en su azul se tiñe el mar.
Por ausente, por vencido
baja estraño pabellón
ningún suelo más querido,
de la Patria en la extensión.
Rompa el manto de neblinas
como un sol nuestro ideal,
Las Malvinas Argentinas,
en dominio ya inmortal.
Y ante el sol de nuestro emblema
pura, nítida y triunfal
brille, ¡Oh Patria! en tu diadema
la perdida perla austral.
Para honor de nuestro emblema,
para orgullo nacional,
brille, ¡Oh Patria! en tu diadema
la perdida perla austral.”
For other side, what Argentina has to offer to the Islanders, in matter of human development, not much, actually a lot of provinces are in a emergency state and malvinas(falklands) shouldnt be our priority, actually BuenosAires had real problems of sanity and security.
And what about of our veterans of war, actually no governament gave help or real support to them, to many of them kill their self. And what about our actually army, proyect cancelled, reduces in support, actually chilenian can kick our asses if they wanna with those F16.
But at the same time, want to know what would happend if the Islander wanna be independent of UK, this is not a simple thing to talk.
I think if an Argentinian governament really wants to claim for Malvinas/Falklands first it should work on the problems of Argentina, I know here will be a lot of comentaries about it, but I enter to this page because I want to see other points of view, may some of us(argentineans) obstinate about it(i was one of them), but here are very good people.
And just as a comment Cristina Kirschner celebrating “Malvinas Day” in London is more than a little insensitive and needlessly provocative. The British Embassy in Buenos Aires would never celebrate June 14 in the same way.
The Falklands ARE a British Overseas Territory, thats a fact and they have been self-governing for a very long time. The Falklands and Britain have moved on while Argentina remains in a time warp obsessed with a 19th Century imagined sleight, amplified by various politicians who've exploited the issue for internal political reasons. Its no co-incidence that Cristina is banging the Falklands drum right now, when her poll ratings are so low.
I seem to remember Argentina ignoring UN resolutions back in 1982 that called for it to remove its troops, UN resolutions didn't seem too important back then. And whilst I don't claim to be an expert, I'm pretty sure International Law looks down upon unprovoked acts of aggression like invading a small and barely defended island community.
If you want to raise the Red Herring about Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Britain or America has any intention of staying there permanently, never did, unlike Argentina did back in 1982. Nor do they intend to impose an alien culture or force the adoption of a foreign language.
Talking of respect smacks of a deep hypocrisy when Argentina's foreign policy is to refuse to recognise the islanders have any say in their own future. Where is your respect for them? Your first response a few days ago was simply to threaten and cajole. You don't see them as a people, you don't recognise them as human beings.
The reality is that Argentina is the architect of its own misfortune, whatever opportunities it has had to build bridges with the Falklanders it has squandered. Instead of rapprochement it has pursued a policy of confrontation that does nothing but further alienate the islanders. Kirschner tore up what little agreements were achieved, again for internal political consumption but that simply pushed the islands further and further away.
While many people called Di Tella naive when he sent Christmas cards and presents to the Falklanders, in reality he was one of the few Argentines who understood the if Argentina was to have any chance of gaining the Falkland Islands it would first have to win the hearts and minds of the Falklanders. Your threats and grand schemes to force people to bend to your will are all doomed to failure, they're counter productive and simply alienate the Falklanders and the islands creep ever further away.
The one and only solution is for Argentina to give up this wrongful claim, and focus on the vast area they have. Sort out your poverty, corruption, injustice, and aim to live as good neighbours!
People of other nationalities have chosen to live in Argentinian territorries: Italian in BA Province, Welsh in Chubut Province, German in Cordoba, Jews. In the Arg. Patagonian, a lot of chilean live here, for better condition (health & education) other Chilean (from Punta Arenas) goes to Rio Gallegos for be attended in its Hospital , and other chilean in Chilean lands (like Chaiten) wants the Arg Nationality, see this chilean article: www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=343415.
If kelpers wants to live in Argentinian lands they have to choose too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falklands_(1833)
Of course later the United Provinces made Luis Vernet Governor of the islands. This resulted in British diplomatic protests at his appointment but these, along with British declarations of sovereignty were ignored.
Of course Britain was going to take back its rightful sovereignty of the Falkands in 1833 - though there is much dispute and some evidence that the Argentinians were not forced to leave as Argentina so often claims.
I expect these questions will be ignored as being too difficult and awkward to answer just as my previous questions have been.
In the 21st Century the moral and mature view would be that - The Falklands are not Britains to give away nor Argentina's to claim - they belong to those that live there and have done so for generations.
In fact for longer than many Argentinians have lived in some of Argentina's territory - e.g. that taken in the genocidal 'Conquest of the Desert'.
As Peter Shaw has said “In the 21st Century the moral and mature view would be that - The Falklands are not Britains to give away nor Argentina's to claim - they belong to those that live there and have done so for generations.” Only an immoral, self centred fool would think otherwise.
But to your question - “Surely our countries will find the way to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides. ” There are THREE sides. Britain, Argentina AND, by FAR the most important, the Falkland Islanders themselves.
In the 21st Century the answer would be to take a mature outlook and leave the Falklands to the Falkland Islanders. To deny them their own sovereignty of their own homeland is immoral. Argentina isn't an immoral state is it?
And besides - Argentina's claim to the Falklands is tenious as best and Argentina knows that or else it would not have turned down - FOUR TIMES - Britain's offer to let the ICJ sort it out.
All I have read so far is but sophistry on Argentina's part. And jejune sophistry at that.
I repeat it was not as you claim an invasion by Britain but, as Britain holds soveriegnty of the Falklands, a legal police action by Britain.
Given your own colonial past and land grabbing I do find it rather hypocritical for Argentina to lay the charge of colonialism on Great Britain.
Anyway - look after yourself and be of good health.
Chris
And for you to simply say that self-determination is nothing but mind washing shows how immoral your 'argument actually is. Especially given that Self Determination is enshrined within the United Nations. And for you to deny self determination is what is actually ridiculous in the current world. It is talk like yours that drives the Falkland Islanders further away from Argentina. In fact - it could be argued that is your own countries actions that is actually pushing the Falknad Islanders closer to Britain and further away from you. And, despite your oft mentioned degree in Int.Trade - which I can only take your word for but will do so - it doesn't give you a 100% correct view of events - as your posts so often show you are actually wrong not right. You ignore points or facts put to you that are inconvenient and instead repeat the same lies over and over again. This is where Britain stands - if the Falkland Islanders asked to have soveriegnty transfered from the United Kingdom to Argentina - she would do so. British overseas territory have modern constitutions that allow for such changes if the population wish it - including independence. Argentina is the expansionist colonial power in the case of the Falkland Islands and Soth Georgia - were Argentina's claim to that Island is even more spurious and pathetic. If you are only going, in response to my post, is to repeat the same lies then please - don't waste your time.
Again - I wish you no illwill and wish you good health,
Chris
Just a few comments for those re-iterating Argentine claims of an explusion of the residents of Vernet's settlement. Indeed, Vernet did ask the British for permission, in 1826 and 1828. He also provided the British with regular reports and urged the British to set up a permanent garrison. He also denied his appointment as governor, insisting his interest was purely commercial. However, the reality is that he was hedging his bets playing of the British Government against the Government of Buenos Aires. Another point to make is that for various reasons, Vernet didn't establish a permanent presence till 1828, previous expeditions were frustrated by one reason or another.
Just for comment, if the British did expel the settlers in January 1833, could someone please explain how they're still there in March 1833 when Darwin and Fitzroy visit. See darwin-online.org.uk/ for the complete works of Darwin and Fitzroy. Could you also explain how they're still there in 1834 when they visit again the following year.
And in March 1833, could you explain how Captain Matthew Brisbane is able to return as Vernet's deputy to be encouraged by Fitzroy to continue with Vernet's enterprise. Could you explain how in August 1833 Thomas Helsby, another settler brought by Vernet, is able to record in his diarythe murder of Brisbane and the other four senior members of Vernet's settlement, all settlers brought by Vernet, by a band led by Antonio Rivero, a gaucho in the employ of Vernet. Could you also explain Helsby's accounts of the survivors of the Gaucho massacre fleeing to Bird Island to a man, woman and child all settlers brought there by Vernet.
In fact according to Helsby's narrative after the Clio left on January 7 there was a grand total of 24 residents on Port Louis.
Captain Matthew Brisbane (superintendent), Thomas Helsby, William Dickson, Don Ventura Pasos, Charles Russler, Antonio Vehingar (known in Buenos Ayres as Antony Wagner), Juan Simon (Capitaz), Faustin Martinez, Santiago Lopez, Pascual Diego, Manuel Coronel, Antonio Rivero, Jose Maria Lune, Juan Brasido, Manuel Gonzales, Luciano Pelores, Manuel Godoy, Felipe Salagar, Lattore; three women: Antonina Roxa, Gregoria Madrid, Carmelita and her two children.
Again to a man, woman and child all settlers brough by Vernet. Of those Manuel Coronel goes on to become a major figure in the early history of the islands until his untimely death in 1841, upon his passing his contribution to the Falkland Islands was noted by the Governor. Antonina Roxas goes on to become a rich lady and a major landowner in Stanley. Carmelita Penny and her sons, widow of Juan Simon are still there in the census of 1851. Santiago Lopez is the St Jago of Darwin's diary.
Not that for one second I expect anyone to listen or to consider that there is many points in the Argentine claim that are historically dubious (to be generous). I fully expect that as I have found many times before, the Argentine claims are more one of faith and like most religious zealots they will shout me down as a heretic. I note that already some comments are trying to ignore the inconvenient fact that what Argentina claims and what happened differ. The obvious question is that if the Argentine claim is so sound, then why does it feel the need to resort to a distortion of historical events. But then we have already had the answer, it has been pointed out elsewhere that when Britain offered a route to a solution through the ICJ, Argentina refused that offer. And the question that arises from that refusal, is why, if Argentina is confident in its case would it do so? And the all too obvious answer is that it refused because Argentina knew it would lose.
Anyway to drag my rambling comments to a focused conclusion. I do believe the dispute between Britain and Argentina has an origin and that revolves around the duplicitous behaviour of Vernet; he played both ends against the middle. But whilst it does have an explanation it doesn't have a solution whilst Argentina clings to a one-sided version of events that leaves no room for alternate viewpoints.
A final comment is that Argentina frequently dismisses the views of the Falkland Islanders as only that of 2000 people. It bases its claim on the basis of a settlement of only 24, 176 years ago and a settlement whose founding was based upon the duplicitous actions of one man.
People we live in the XXI Century. Dont forget That. Good Luck !
Talk care - I wish you good health.
Chris
www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article 1.1
Why does Argentina think that this is wrong?
Take care and I wish you good health
Chris
Will Argentina be giving back the lands they stole and occupy? The ones they took in the Conquest of the Desert? Because if we follow your logic - you should do so.
Chris
I posed a series of simple questions, referring to documentary evidence, simply asking for an explanation for the difference between what Argentina claims and what the historical records shows. So again, if as Argentina claims Vernet's settlement was expelled, then please explain why there is a wealth of documentary evidence contradicting that.
There are many other contradictions in the Argentine claim. For example they claim to have continuously protested against the British presence in the islands since 1833. That is simply not true, Argentina in fact abandoned its claim when it signed the Convention of Settlement in 1850. It ceased all protests for nearly 35 years until the claim was revived in 1885. And the claim has been periodically revived ever since, it was seized upon most recently by Peron but even he cheerfully admitted to the British Diplomat Bill Hunter-Christie that he didn't really believe in it but it was “useful to unite the people”. And yes I'm aware that certain Argentine historians have tried to refute the lack of protests but they have to be pretty inventive about what constitutes a protest to do so.
But as I predicted I was merely shouted down as a heretic, no attempt at a riposte or any meaningful attempt to engage in a dialogue. Simply shouting that Argentina has a monopoly on the truth and its what it says it is, mmm, OK!
And the immediate response is once more to threaten and announce grandiose plans how Argentina is one day going to coerce the British into handing over the islands to it and, well, thats just tough on whatever the people living there actually desire. There is a word for people who seek to dominate and subjugate a people against their will, imposing a alien culture and subverting their resources. Its not a word thats used that much anymore, particularly as the British got rid of their Empire over 50 years ago. Its colonialism, yes colonialism. The Argentines may preach sanctimoniously about the former British Empire and dismiss the Falklanders as mere settlers but its ambitions would create a colonial situation; particularly as the islanders have moved way beyond their former colonial status to a vibrant and thriving democracy.
And one contributor even goes to far as to crow that they “live with fear, resentment, anger,isolated”, ah yes that might be explained by the bullying and confrontational policies pursued by Argentina. Not for one second considering that the only way Argentina will ever win the Falkland Islands is if it first wins the hearts and minds of the islanders.
From what I have read of the Falkland Islanders they do desire closer ties with the South American mainland. They are prepared to talk to Argentina but for all its loud protests about negotiations, Argentina has absolutely no intention of negotiating. As Chris points about above, the Falkland Islanders are a warm, fair and friendly people. Come in peace and respect and you will be welcomed, continue to pursue the policies you have done and the islands merely slip ever further from your grasp.
And mentioning that editorial by Gott, please, are you that desperate. At least do some research about the man. But in riposte let me quote Carlos Escude, an Argentine historian who spent many years studying Argentina's claims but eventually concluded they were groundless.
“I spent many years studying the nationalistic content of educational textbooks and the doctrines which generated those texts. And it's very clear from those texts how we got the idea of the sovereignty of Argentina over the Falklands. The notion that right was on our side was absolutely irrefutable and nobody could reasonably doubt it.”
“After studying the history of the Argentine claims on the islands, I would say they were absolutely without foundation - it's more of a habit than anything else.”
But Escude must be a heretic as well, he was sacked for not toeing the line.
And as a parting shot why should any South American country wish to impose sanctions on Britain and damage their own economy, simply to satisfy Argentina's macho pride about an illogical irredentist sovereignty claim? Particularly so, when Argentina is not even prepared to defend it in the ICJ.
May be you can read about Duque de Wellington (prime minister in 1834), Sidney Spicer(Department of América of the Foreign Office in 1910), R. Campbell(secretary asistance of the Foreign Office in 1911), Sir Malcolm A. Robertson(british embassador in Buenos Aires in 1928), George Fitzmaurice(legal adviser of the inglish cancillery in 1936), John Troutbeck, they all had doubts about british sovereignty so may be they didnt read as much as you did.
About inhabitants of malvinas, we argentines do not have to wins the hearts and minds of the islanders becouse they do not own those islands, they are not a separated entity from those british living in the uk, they are not originate from malvinas.
About the Icj i would like that to happens, but first to make sure the Icj works impartially, i would wait until the us and the uk are trial for war crimes against iraq's people. I guess you agree with me that both the uk and the us commited war crimes. So when that happens i will be happy to support that initative.
And another thing i dont get from you guys, the uk expelled the inhabitants of diego garcia islands who were in the same situation of malvinas inhabitants, so my question is why the uk expelled them???. I thought that they aplly for the same rights.
If Great Britain wasn't recognised as holding rightful sovereignty - why did Vernet approach Great Britain for permission to set up a settlement? Great Britain did not expell the settlement. They were encouraged to stay if they wanted and some did. There is proof of this - OK it upsets your argument but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. Get used to it. Anyway - given that Great Britain was the rightful holder of sovereignty of the Falklands, as acknowledged by Vernet when he sought permission from Great Britain, she had every right to expell them if she so wished. Given the actions of the United Provinces and Vernet when they violated British sovereignty. The fact that we didn't shows just how sporting we are as a nation. But all this is unimportant really - even if Britain had expelled them we were within our rights to do so. But given that we didn't... (this is where you post the usual sophistry and repeat of outdated information in response - as if your repeating the same lie long enough will make it true. Kinda reminds me of someone who used that same method around 1939 in Germany.) TO REPEAT - even IF Britian had expelled Vernet and his settlers - it WAS WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO DO SO as she HELD sovereignty as accepted by Vernet when he sought permission from Great Britain. Sorry for having to repeat things but it appears to take such a method to make it sink into your skull.
I wish you good health - if we met I am sure we would get on and only disagree on the matter of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
Chris
when you said it was within her rights to do so (expell them) you are wrong, british recognized argentine independence when we had full sovereignty of malvinas and made no claims about it. That means recognized Argentina with all its territory and people in it as part of the same republic.
Chris, i feel the same way, good luck.
Again I posed a simple series of questions, linked to documentary evidence that shows that contrary to what Argentina claims the settlers were not expelled in 1833. The question I posed was to please explain the inconsistencies in the Argentine version of events and the documentary evidence. Not one person has chosen to do that.
Instead I've had at least one person posting quotations from Angel M. Oliveri-Lopez's book. Like so many Argentine publications on the Falklands its a flawed document in that he only quotes those foreign officials who express doubts about the British position. A balanced work would have included those officials who expressed strong opinions of the opposite persuasion. And indeed to have considered the Argentine position where doubts about Argentina's claim are expressed; like the Argentine foreign minister who considered the British case to be exceedingly strong. I would point out, however, that the British don't sack people for expressing contrary opinions about the merits of the British case.
And the equivocal response to the ICJ is to be frank utter nonsense and confuses the matter with the ICC. For reference www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php and www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/home. The ICJ is of course an impartial organisation, Argentina refused to consider that route as if its case is examined in detail in simply collapses.
And if you're interested where I've studied, its largely been a private matter, in many cases going back to original sources. When I started my studies I'll be honest enough to say that I assumed that there was some merit in what Argentina had to say, given the brusque and arrogant manner the British Empire often operated. However, as I studied it more and more I gradually came to a realisation that was not the case. Rather like Escude I came to realise that Argentina has created a national myth about the Falklands. In particular I remember the moment of clarity when things clicked in my head, I was reading Darwin's account of the 1834 visit of the Beagle when I realised that these were the people supposedly expelled a year before.
So if you're saying I am wrong, then please offer an explanation for the contradiction between the documentary evidence and the claims of Argentina.
Telling isn't it that once again you assert that the 9th generation Falkland Islander has no rights on the grounds they are not “original”. Well living in a country that Spain tore from its aboriginal inhabitants, that Argentina expanded in its own right in the “Conquest of the Desert”, neither is over 90% of the population of modern day Argentina. By your own argument modern day Argentina has no right to exist, which is not to deny Argentina but a simple reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the logic, the double standard and hypocrisy.
Regarding the expulsion of the population of Diego Garcia. That was utterly wrong, immoral and against the UN Charter. UK courts have agreed and it remains a stain on the UK Government that they have not resolved the situation. I don't shy away from that. But does doing the wrong thing there justify doing the same thing to the Falkland Islanders?
As a final point, your post is everything that is wrong with the Argentine approach. It dismisses the rights of the people there as unimportant and a matter only of territory. That is straight out of the 19th Century, its called colonialism. We've left that behind a long time ago.
sources of british sources which i dont agree but they prove that Argentine settles were expelled.:
www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4884
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/4087743.stm
uk.holidaysguide.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-1229014-_falkland_islands_islas_malvinas_history-i
www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/falkland-islands/?profile=all
www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/the_falklands_war.php
so why dont you? Of course there were some Argentine left, may be they thought they were chileans.
About comparing Malvinas invasion of 1833 with Argentine killings of indians its such a foolish, acording to law on those times, unfortunally there were no aboriginal inhabitants, no human rights for them, like the uk use to have slaves. But when malvinas was invaded there were legally and recognized by the british empire, an Argentine settlement. So legally Argentina didnt broke the law killings the aboriginal inhabitants.
About the population of Diego Garcia and, may i add, the banaban island's inhabitants, are refused to selfdetermination,the same rights you want to impose on malvinas. You are right doing the wrong thing there does not justify doing the same thing to others. So instead of starting with malvinas why dont you start with them, or iraq's people who suffer an invasion for who knows why? do you know?.
And in response to your last Paragraph you said you abandom colonialism a long time ago but, acording to the United nation, malvinas, in this century, continue to be a colony, a british colony.
Thats what happends with you people i cant believe you call us colonialist, we only colonized patagonia, you colonized half of the world.
You like it or not invaded iraq and tranformed it into a colony where you stole their gold, their oil, and their future.
I will not forget to mention iraq becouse you have no excuse to be there, if i ask you why did you invaded, you have no clue. Thats what should worry you about becouse you dont see iraq' deads, you see your soldiers dead, you see liberty not ocupation, you see democracy, not a pro-british government imposed.
Shame on you.
www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139220750082&topic=7754
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!